Languages

Lexical inferencing (LIF) draws on multiple knowledge sources (KSs), but little is known about how the same multilingual readers report using these sources across different reading tasks. This exploratory study examined 31 Chinese–English–Japanese trilinguals who completed think-aloud inferencing tasks in three language-and-material conditions. Nine KS Types were coded, and trial-level ordinal mixed-effects models related KS use to rater-coded LIF success and participant-selected immediate Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS) categories. Sentence Meaning was the most frequently reported KS Type in all three conditions, while several word-level KS Types and co-occurrence patterns varied across conditions. KS Amount was not associated with LIF success. The joint KS Type test produced weak, threshold-sensitive evidence, and no individual KS Type contrast survived multiplicity correction. VKS categories differed across conditions but were not consistently associated with LIF success, KS Amount, KS Type, or exploratory co-occurrence measures. Because language was confounded with texts, target sets, target status, proficiency, and language experience, between-condition contrasts are descriptive and cannot isolate language or transfer effects. The findings question a simple ‘more is better’ account of reported KS use and identify descriptive patterns for testing in future matched-material studies.

When speakers encounter errors or misunderstandings in others’ talk, how they respond carries both pragmatic and interpersonal consequences that vary systematically across languages and cultures, yet this area remains underexplored in cross-cultural pragmatic research. This study examines how native speakers of English, Spanish, and Chinese respond to communication trouble across comparable sociopragmatic situations, and how social distance and social status shape these responses. Data were elicited from 124 L1 speakers of English, Spanish, and Chinese using an online Discourse Completion Task (DCT) and analysed using a pragmatics-oriented framework distinguishing three main types of responses: remediation, trouble-signalling, and let-it-pass. Results show that all three groups preferred remediation, particularly indirect remediation, reflecting a shared concern for managing the face-threatening potential of addressing others’ problems. The groups diverged most sharply in their use of let-it-pass, with Chinese and English speakers leaving trouble unaddressed far more often than Spanish speakers. Social status emerged as a more robust and cross-linguistically consistent factor than social distance, with remediation more frequently selected in high-status contexts across all three groups. These findings provide a cross-cultural reference point for L2 pragmatic instruction, particularly for learners whose L1 norms diverge most sharply from the target language in managing communicative trouble.

This article presents a longitudinal case study of want-constructions in an English–Russian bilingual child whose early language was characterized by prolonged pronoun reversal (i.e., using you for self-reference). The analysis focuses on want-constructions used during a period in which canonical English imperatives were not documented (e.g., want tear it). Drawing on detailed diary records (ages 2;8–5;5), the study examines the morphosyntactic forms of these constructions and their discourse–pragmatic functions. The findings show that the child used want-constructions to express a range of directive meanings, including requests, prohibitions, and counterfactual wishes. Their morphosyntax became increasingly complex over time, with the emergence of overt matrix subjects, infinitival marking, and verbal morphology. However, greater morphosyntactic complexity did not automatically trigger adult-like subject-control relations in complements of want; the interpretation of null embedded subjects often remained dependent on discourse context. The study argues that volitional want-predicates served as a lexically anchored alternative to canonical imperatives during a period of pronoun reversal. Their development may reflect the interaction of discourse-functional, usage-based, and crosslinguistic factors. The findings highlight the need to investigate the development of directive strategies in both bilingual and monolingual children with pronoun reversals.